Engine rebuild - UK recommendations?

[Doing Whats Needed]

Dual Release

IO540

In my reply, I stated that the 8130-3 was acceptable if it was being installed by an EASA Part M Sub-part F organisation and being installed on a non-large aircraft not employed as commercial transport, their Exposition must detail how they will deal with these components. A Part 145 organisation has no such dispensation, AMC 613(a) refers.

Doing Whats Needed

[IO540]

I recall reading in one CAA tome that a Class A part (engine/prop) has to come with an Export CofA (8130-4) if fitted to a G-reg.

This applies to both new and used parts.

If the part is new but not Class A (e.g. a fuel pump) then an 8130-3 is acceptable for a G-reg.

If a part is used then an 8130-3 is no good for a G-reg.

Public Transport ops (which nowadays probably means AOC ops) require an EASA-1 form (or a dual release 8130-3) for everything - supposedly (and yes much of this crap is pretty unworkable)

If you know otherwise, I am genuinely very interested in up to date references. I last researched this before Sep 08 which was a relevant date.

[john baines]

Engine rebuild

I had a very good experience with Norvic. I have a C-150 Aerobat - the one with the 130hp Continental/Rolls Royce engine. It was only low hours when I bought it, but it had a catastrophic failure in flight soon after. The company that had rebuilt the engine was not really interested in my questions, so I wanted to avoid them. I was recommended to try Norvic by my maintenance organisation.

Rebuilding these engines is not straightforward when almost everything needs to be replaced. Richard Boddie and his colleagues went to extraordinary lengths to get all the parts needed and still managed to charge a very reasonable price. I was constantly kept informed of progress and they gave a very professional service.

The engine has done almost 50 hours hours since I got the aeroplane back and it is now happily aerobatting again. I have Lycoming coming up for rebuild next year, and I will be very happy to use them again.

[topoverhaul]

I also will add my vote for Nicholson McLaren

[RWheeler]

Best Lycoming shops in UK

Hi,

Our C177 is in for its annual and a significant amount of copper colored metallic was found in the oil-filter. On pulling all 4 cylinders they discovered significant wear on the piston-rod end-caps in 3 & 4 (not 1 & 2) and more worryingly signs of severe overheating on the con-rod ends of 3 & 4
They have the Rollason engineer take a look and he is offering a strip to assess for Ł700
Can you advise
1) Good and bad engine shops in UK ( I know of Rollason and Isenberg)
2) COuld Airspeed Aviation at Derby carry out such work (replacing the con-rods?)

ANy advice much appreciated

Rgds

Rod

[Victorian]

My aircraft is maintained by Airspeed. When the 0-320 camshaft expired almost 2 yrs ago having them rebuild it was certainly an option. However their advice was to look around so that we knew what we were getting into.

I'm glad we did because it quickly came to light that the crankshaft was a write off and that most UK rebuilders would leave you to find that out after they had started work.

It was a no-brainer to get a Lycoming factory rebuild because they would accept a core regardless of crankshaft condition. Everyone else would charge for it.

The rebuilt engine came in less than 3 weeks and has run 150+ hours now with no problems and negligible oil consumption.

[Zulu Alpha]

RWheeler,

I would recommend a call to Richard Isenberg. He is very familiar with piston plug wear and always advises you to fit Superior gudgeon pins which have the caps attached.

The standard lycoming ones create a seal and as the piston warms up the pressure builds and pushes them onto the cylinder walls. There are supposed to be small holes to release the pressure but they get blocked.

He will probably be able to tell you about the cause of the overheating. A very nice helpful chap with lots of knowledge. Even if you don't use him you will get some good advice (and I bet you do use him after speaking with him).

[wsmempson]

Neil Andrews at AEP ( Aero Engineering & Powerplant - About Us ) has got the IO540 out of my Saratoga and is doing a really nice job. Unlike the man who overhauled the IO360 on my Arrow, who reduced it to a pile of bits on his floor, then upped the cost by 50% ("If you don't like it, you can take it all away") and took 5 months to turn the job around - so far Neil is on time and on budget and the engine looks spanking.

I also hear good things about Nicholson McClaren and Richard Isenberg, but have no 1st hand experience. PM or email me for info on who NOT to go to under any circumstances.

[smarthawke]

Personally I'd go with Nicholson-McLaren Aviation who have done excellent work for us over the last few years. Neil Andrews is a good guy too.

The one not to go to has been mentioned by the recent poster (though spelt incorrectly, and with the 'good' and the 'bad' the wrong way round) and it isn't Isenberg or Airspeed. Said person, so rumour on the runway, was allegedly visited by a couple of people from Eastern Europe recently who explained things their way on behalf of their employer....

[A and C]

Lycoming Exchange

A few years back I exchanged a very good O-235 that had reached 2880 hours using the full 20% extention and was still running sweetly for a Lycoming factory exchange engine.

This engine has been apart at 750 hours due to piston pin plug failure and then at 1290 hours (2400 TBO) the engine started making metal, and so came apart once more.

The result of the inspection found internal corrosion in the crankshaft dispite the PID treatment, the conclusion was that the corrosion was in the crank when it left the Lycoming factory, as you can guess it turned into a very expensive overhaul.

I would not expect Lycoming to pay for the engine overhaul but clearly the crankshaft had left the factory in a less than satisfactory state and I did contact Lycoming about this, the reaction was basicly "not Lycomings problem".

I have no doubt that Lycoming know that this engine was well below their normal standard but just won't admit this and would not supply a replacment crankshaft.

So I conclude that if you have a good engine that is running well then get it overhauled at an engine shop where you can see it. If it is a pile of junk then get a Lycoming factory exchange and except that you are taking the chance, the probability is that you will get a good engine back from Lycoming but if you later find that it is well below standard you can expect no support what so ever.

[IO540]

Lycoming are notorious on their warranty handling.

Basically, engine warranties are meaningless unless absolutely obvious negligence is provable which causes a rapid failure (and I can't off hand think of an obvious example where the negligence won't be covered by the subsequent damage as the thing comes apart) and the best thing one can do to go to a highly reputable engine shop.

I have also seen some apparent evidence that UK-based main dealers for Lyco/Conti have an incentive to cover up stuff they find. One would think they would have an incentive to dig up as much work as possible but in some cases this does not apply. I am thinking of internal corrosion caused by improper long term storage. The overhauler does not want to open that can of worms because if they, in their "official Lyco distributor" capacity, condemn an engine but the factory does not back them up, they are legally liable under EU consumer protection and will lose out big time.... I am particularly thinking of one company which is no longer trading.

Incidentally, what is the latest regulatory position on US-overhauled engines with an 8130-3 fitted to EASA-reg planes?

It used to be that an 8130-4 (an Export CofA, signed by a US DAR) was mandatory on Class A parts (engines and props). But the FAA stopped doing the 8130-4 recently so an 8130-3 is the only option. An 8130-3 is always fine for an N-reg but possibly not fine for a G-reg unless the overhauler is an EASA 145 company and their approval number is on the 8130-3 (in which case the 8130-3 is essentially equivalent to an EASA-1).

Also an 8130-3 was never fine for a G-reg for a used part, and your own engine overhauled becomes a "used part" so you could never have it back This was a major issue at one time, until Lyco/Conti got EASA approvals. The big US engine shops (e.g. Pen Yan) also have EASA approvals but their quality record is not as exemplary as certain small firms e.g. Barrett Precision.

[Victorian]

My engine had had the 'PID treatment' (some paint) but that didn't stop it being rusty and pitted inside the bore. It's easy to find out (just pull the core plug in the end of the crankshaft) and worth doing before you make the overhaul decision. There's no machining tolerance, so if it's rusty, that's it.

I did wonder what happens to the old crankshafts ...

[RWheeler]

Next Steps

Thanks to all for the very helpful feedback. The group did make contact with all the companies mentioned and as suggested had fantastically helpful advise from Isenberg, Norvic, Airspeed and NMA. In the end we have decided to go with NMA for the initial assessment and see where we go from there. Will feedback any useful info. Rgds.

[JW411]

Richard Isenburg did mine and I'm very pleased with it.

[rogcal]

Richard Isenberg did the engine in my old Tommy and was still going well at 3000 hours when I sold the plane.

[pcjk]

"it was a no-brainer to get a Lycoming factory rebuild because they would accept a core regardless of crankshaft condition. Everyone else would charge for it."

Our crank shaft is ok, but crank case needs overhaul. We were told that would we ask for a Lycoming factory rebuild, we would lose our core deposit, or atleast a majority of it due to the state of our engine.

But you write that you were not charged. Would someone be able to elaborate? As before going ahead with a 20k+ zero-time overhaul we would obviously like to know our oprions.

Thanks

[A and C]

pcjk

What type of Lycoming? we might have a set of crankcases for that engine.

[Victorian]

PCJK

Here's what Lycoming's agent told me in August 2009:

Lycoming did come back to me this afternoon stating that corrosion itself is not disqualifying but some other points.

1. Active, the core must have accumulated “flight” time and had maintenance performed on it within the past year.
2. Assembled, the core must be in an “as removed” condition. Cores that have been disassembled by a field overhaul shop do not meet the “assembled” condition.
3. Complete, the returned core must be configured in a similar manner as the replacement engine. Cores that have had engine components or accessories removed for use on another engine will fail to meet the “complete” requirement.
4. Operable, the core must have been able to perform to a level that safely permitted its use “in flight” up to the time it was removed for replacement.
5. The valid engine data plate must be attached and returned with the core.
6. Total time since new or factory rebuild must be provided.

This discussion was about corrosion and failed PID treatment but I was led to believe that they would accept the core regardless of condition subject to the above. That was then and maybe not now!

[pcjk]

Victorian:

Cores that have been disassembled by a field overhaul shop do not meet the “assembled” condition.

Does that mean that if our engine is stripped at themoment it would not qualify according to those criteria?

A and C

Our engine is a Lycoming IO-360-A1B6 engine (serial no. L-7813-51A).




Also do any of you have any info /experience on IO-390 for Cessna Cardinals?

Many thanks....

[Zulu Alpha]

I have an IO390 and am very pleased with it.

However I didn't think you could fit it to any certified aircraft and that it was only for use on Experimental/homebuilt aircraft.

One thing to realise is that it has slightly higher compression than the std IO360 and so cannot use Mogas.

Fuel consumption is about 10% higher than the angle valve IO360 that I had before.

It comes as std with the counterbalanced crankshaft and the roller tappets.